Saturday, March 08, 2008

Subvert the dominant paradigm

While surfing I ran across dedroidify and its associated blog. Such sites remind me of the exploratory spirit of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack.

These two sites are good repositories of conspiracy and consciousness-related links, videos, and commentary. I am not a big fan of most conspiracy theories, in the sense that I don't actively worry about what the Illuminati or aliens or Opus Dei may be up to. But I do think it's important to question authority.

However, I am not in favor of mindlessly overthrowing anything until the consequences of the new (paradigm, government, etc.) is better understood. Anarchy might be fun for 20 minutes, but after Shiva's passion subsides and you'd like to call out for pizza delivery, you better hope that you haven't accidentally torched the telephone system.

31 comments:

Thanks for posting this, looks interesting. Not really a fan of conspiracy myself... Although I would be more than happy to share my pepperoni with extra cheese with whatever decided to drop in, be it Illuminati or aliens included, although I would have a problem with the astronomical phone bill caused by the aliens because they thought they had to hijack my phone to call my friends three galaxies away.

I prefer not to buy into conspiracies either. The more one resists a thing, the more it pushes back in opposition, and thus will refuse to budge or change.

I believe it's better to trust the flow of the river and not place boulders in its path, which just causes turbulence. If left on its own, the river will eventually find the sea - of change, that is.

And because flow and change, evolution and expansion seem to be the nature of the Universe, new paradigms will gradually evolve and be accepted each in its own due time, as human consciousness is ripe and ready for it.

Good post. John Mack's exploratory spirit is illustrated by one of his comments: "The idea that we could be reached by some other kind of being, creature, intelligence that could actually enter our world and have physical effects as well as emotional effects, was simply not part of the world view that I had been raised in. So that I came very reluctantly to the conclusion that this was a true mystery"

The full interview may be read here:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/johnmack.html

For a contrary view on alien abduction phenomena, see the interview with Carl Sagan:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html

Sagan had an interesting skeptical point: "To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on earth, chemical elements form the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts -- electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account"

The above evidence that Sagan refers is a good one. It's hard evidence. I agree with him. But I think that "acumulative evidence" can be useful too, not to "prove" the phenomena, but to take it seriously. Evidence is a matter of grade, not something absolute.

One anecdote may be worthless, but if many people refers the same phenomena and they coincide in specific details, we have some reasons to think that the phenomena isn't only imaginative. It doens't prove the phenomena as real, but I'd be open to research it more.

If alien abduction is true, it's not a natural phenomena, but an artificial one. It's intelligent, intentional, deliberate. Maybe the natural science methods can't be used in this case with total success (at least, as the exclusive research methodology).

This is the problem with the positivistic worldview: it only accept natural science methods.

Mack was an skeptic when he began to study the phenomena. He only became convinced of it when he examined many specific cases and saw a pattern in them.

If by "skeptical scientists" Sagan refered to people like Hyman, Randi o Shermer, we'll know the result of this "skeptical examination".

I don't know if aliens exists (and in this case, if they abduct people or not). I tend to be skeptical of it. But I don't think we can to dismiss Mack's reserach so easily.

By the way, in the same interview, Sagan said (to dismiss the evidence): "But there's no scrapings, no interior photographs, no filched page from the captain's log book. All there are are stories"

Do you really think that "skeptical scientists" (Shermer, Hyman, etc.) would take seriously "interior photographs" or "filched page from the captain's log book" as evidence?

Most physical scientists are used to working with physical stuff. They regard subjective measurements, including anecdotal reports, as so suspicious that they're not worth paying attention to.

And yet some physical scientists fall in love, some believe that they're conscious, some even believe that others are conscious. These "measurements" seem valid enough to them to be taken as real.

While I don't know how to interpret claims of alien abduction, I do accept the evidence for the existence of UFOs, because there we do have a lot more than just eyewitness testimony. Whether UFOs are ET or not, I don't know. But that there are unexplained aerial objects out there seems clear enough to me.

The book I recommend on this topic is Richard Dolan's UFOs and the National Security State.

"While I don't know how to interpret claims of alien abduction, I do accept the evidence for the existence of UFOs, because there we do have a lot more than just eyewitness testimony. Whether UFOs are ET or not, I don't know. But that there are unexplained aerial objects out there seems clear enough to me."

For a balanced, sober discussion of the UFO phenomenon, I would recommend Paul Kimball's blog. He focuses on the best cases and concludes that there is a real unexplained phenomenon but that it is premature to speculate on UFO origins. He also does a good job of debunking the Roswell case:

I just read the website about John Mack, and I must say I believe there is something to his notion that the alien abduction phenomenon is of a cross-over nature, that these are multi-dimensional beings making contact with people and that these "abductions" are taking place in a non-3-dimensional realm (i.e., an altered state of consciousness for the experiencer/abductee) - not physically real, yet still real vs. pure fantasy or mental illness. Mack, a psychiatrist, ought to know! I find his statement very interesting that, "I worked with people over hundred and hundreds of hours and have done as careful a job as I could to listen, to sift out, to consider alternative explanations. And none have come forward. No one has found an alternative explanation in a single abduction case."

So to compare Mack's statements against Sagan's viewpoint about where is the hard evidence is like comparing apples and oranges. If the experience is not purely 3rd-dimensional, how can you have 3rd-dimensional, physical evidence?

I would guess that when these UFO/crafts enter the same space as Earth, like light waves, if their frequency wobbles or changes (either at the occupants' will or accidentally) into a range detectable by the human eye, we see them (and then they might shoot off or disappear again). Perhaps, even if we see them for momentarily, though, they are not made of any 3D material, nothing to see on a radar screen, nothing to recover from a so-called crash.

Definitely needs more research - with a greatly expanded paradigm, beyond a limited, materialist worldview!

"I find his statement very interesting that, "I worked with people over hundred and hundreds of hours and have done as careful a job as I could to listen, to sift out, to consider alternative explanations. And none have come forward. No one has found an alternative explanation in a single abduction case.""

I guess Mack isn't very credible then. There really isn't any good evidence to suggest that there is an "abduction phenomenon." Check out this post at Kimball's blog:

"Q. Can you talk a bit about “the will to believe”, what you mean by that, and how it impacts ufology, and Roswell?

A. It’s not by any accident that “the will to believe” is part of the subtitle of my book. What I mean by it is the desire for something to be true affecting one’s judgment and assessment of the facts before you. The poster on the wall in Fox Mulder’s office that says “I Want to Believe” is a representation of what happens to be a very real thing in ufology. People want very much to believe whatever it is that happens to be their interest – alien visitation, abductions, etcetera. Unfortunately what happens is this leads them to ignore facts which are inconvenient, that is, facts which are contrary to the things that they want to believe. Roswell is replete with this, as are so many other things in ufology. Abductions are another example of this. So, we have a real problem, especially since the field is not one which is self-policing in any kind of formal or semi-formal way like other disciplines are. It’s a field more dominated by enthusiasm and fannish-ness, if you will, rather than serious scientific or academic pursuit, like you would find in other fields where you have peer review and so on, where there is a formalized process. I’m not saying that there aren’t people who are serious investigators, that there aren’t people who do really good work, in ufology, because there are, but this is embedded in this greater, larger matrix of belief and sort of pop culture that really causes a serious problem. And the problem is not only the will to believe – it’s also the will not to believe. You have the mirror-image on the so-called sceptic side, the CSICOP-ians, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. [laughs] Whew – a mouthful. [laughs] They start from the premise that “they can’t be, therefore they aren’t.” The true believers start from “they must be, therefore they are.” So, those of us who are slogging through all this, and trying to follow the facts wherever they lead, and sort out the truth involved, are caught between these two extremes, and unfortunately are often defined by them. As a result, it’s very hard to get people who are outside the field, and who have professional expertise and knowledge that could be brought to near in a very effective and constructive way, to get involved, because they don’t want to get caught in that bizarre definition problem either."

That there is an "abduction phenomenon" is clearly true in the sense that some people report these experiences, so there's something in need of an explanation. It's the interpretation of these reported experiences that is the bone of contention.

In my reading about, and speaking to some of these people, I think not all of them want to believe. Indeed, many were completely freaked out by the experience and told no one about it for years. Could it be confabulation in some cases? Sure. Could it be something else? Maybe.

John Mack was an experienced psychiatrist. He wasn't naive about blind spots and hidden motives of the human psyche (except perhaps in underestimating his colleagues' reaction to taking this topic seriously).

"That there is an "abduction phenomenon" is clearly true in the sense that some people report these experiences, so there's something in need of an explanation. It's the interpretation of these reported experiences that is the bone of contention."

Sorry, my dismissal was a bit vague. I completely agree that there is a phenomenon in the sense that you've described, but I haven't seen any remotely compelling evidence to suggest that people have actually been "abducted."

Eric, no-one came forward with alternative explanations to Mack's findings because they were too afraid to set foot outside the box of mainstream scientific/medical thinking (materialism). They saw what Mack went thru! However, after a 15-month investigation by a Harvard Medical School special faculty committee appointed to review Dr. Mack's clinical care and clinical investigation of his subjects, Dr. Mack was exonerated. He was competent and knew what he was doing. I'd say Dr. Mack had more courage than most to go where most others (then and now) fear to tread - that's a true pioneer! I count you in this pioneer group, Dean! :D

And I have looked into the Redstar Films/Paul Kimball blog - it is indeed an interesting and balanced site. If you do a search for posts on "extradimensional" or "interdimensional" ETs/beings, you will find some very serious discussion, even some older written evidence/accounts of such non-physical experiences. Subjective written accounts, although not physical or tangible, are still evidence that something extraordinary is going on, across time and different places and cultures. It seems to be a universal phenomenon of human experience - perhaps exactly why so-called belief in the paranormal and God/religion won't go away - because perhaps there is a very real component to it that most people can't see or sense - it's not physical or 3-dimensional!

The example of dialog you gave is like pitting an extreme atheist/materialist (i.e., a Richard Dawkins) against a fanatical fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, where both are driven by extreme belief or faith (in the former's case, it is a "scientistic faith" as Dean puts it). Wild extremes - like the Roswell conspiracy or anything appearing in the tabloid press - do not present a realistic picture. The truth/reality lies somewhere in the middle of the wild swings of the pendulum.

BTW, the only perhaps plausible explanation I *have* heard that might help explain alien abduction stories is that of a sleeper becoming lucid during a bout of sleep paralysis. (It has happened to me, and when my body refused to move, my consciousness just decided to get up out of my body anyway - I had a very cool, exciting, lucid "out of body" experience! It was extremely real in the sense that I was totally aware that it was happening, that I was out of my physical body, and I was floating through rooms in my house and flying right through walls by choice! It certainly wasn't any normal dream. It was a different state of consciousness. Did it all take place in my brain? I'm convinced it was much more, that I - my consciousness - had momentarily moved beyond my brain/body until the sleep paralysis phase had ended and my body was able to move again and wake up.) It is interesting, and may explain in part that the experiencer senses an entity is present and that he/she has been paralyzed, frighteningly unable to move or escape the entity (perceived through the modern, pop-culture lens as an alien). This also is a bit similar to Dr. Michael Persinger's "god helmet" - Persinger claimed he could recreate mystical experiences in people's brains simply by stimulating the brain with electromagnetic waves, and this, according to Persinger, was the cause of mystical experiences of "God" or "oneness." But later research found Persinger's research flawed; any experiences of "god" his subjects sensed had been planted suggestively - i.e., the subjects were led to believe that's what they would experience when the donned the helmet, so that's what they reported. When no such suggestions were planted prior when the tests were conducted (double-blind), no "god" experiences were reported! So the "god helmet" (stimulation of the brain) or sleep paralysis may only re-create or provide a parallel *within the brain itself* for mystical or paranormal experiences.

If one studies such experiences (NDEs, OBEs, mystical states of consciousness, etc.), they are extremely vivid and detailed and very real to the experiencer, beyond normal consciousness or even the normal dream state. Experiments such as the "god helmet" and the sleep paralysis theory tend to fall short of proving that such experiences ONLY arise within the brain rather than the possibility that they actually may in some cases originate from outside or beyond the brain (and where the brain is just the receiver/satellite dish and interpreter of the incoming data, so to speak).

Perhaps I spoke too harshly. If there are people who genuinely believe that they were abducted, then it's a good thing if people like John Mack are there to help them (from a purely psychological standpoint). My point is that it is premature to conclude that there have been actual abductions. I'm certainly open minded to the possibility that the phenomenon may be real.

In contrast to the abduction phenomenon, there are well documented, genuinely inexplicable UFO cases such as RB47, Tehran 1976, Rendlesham, Phoenix Lights, etc.

The concept of crossover phenomena intrigued me. If you look up dimethyl tryptamine (DMT) in GOOGLE you will find accounts of how this substance generates extreme hallucinations that include meetings with other beings. This, of course, does not determine whether these phenomena are in any way real - but I wonder if they are connected.

I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting point of Mack's case for the reality of abductions. It was taken from the interview with Mack:

"But if we must find a theory within ourselves, then we should keep in mind that any theory that's going to even begin to address this, has to take into account five factors:

Number one, the extreme consistency of the stories from person after person. Which you would not get simply by stimulating the temporal lobes. You would get very variable idiosyncratic responses that would differ a great deal from person to person.

Number two, you would have to deal with the fact that there is no ordinary experiential basis for this. In other words, there's nothing in their life experience that could have given rise to this, other than what they say. In other words, there's no mental condition that could explain it.

Third, you have to account for the physical aspects: the cuts and the other lesions on their bodies, which do not follow any psychodynamic distribution, like the stigmata associated with the identification with the agony of Christ.

Fourth, the tight association with UFOs, which are often observed in the community, by the media, independent of the person having the abduction experience, who may not have seen the UFO at all, but reads or sees on the television the next day that a UFO passed near where they were when they had an abduction experience.

And finally, the phenomenon occurs in children as young as two, two and a half, three years old. And any theory that simply attributes this to the activity of the brain, does not take into account at least three of those five fundamental dimensions... "

I think the above 5 points of Mack are interesting, and it could be considered "circunstantial evidence" for the case of abductions. It doesn't prove that hypothesis is true, but it seems to me to be a sign for the external reality of the phenomenon, TAKEN AS A WHOLE.

It isn't "hard" or compelling absolute/irrefutable/laboratory scientific evidence. But it deserves a more in depth examination.

I agree with Erik that it is premature to conclude that there have been actual abductions. More reserach is needed. Also, I agree with lightseeker that it needs more research with a greatly expanded paradigm, beyond a limited, materialist worldview (it should include a revision of logical positivism: it's the epistemological consequence of consistent materialism). Maybe, some of the forensic science's methods could be useful in that case.

I think the evidence suggests that abductions are a psychic phenomena. As Jacques Vallée said, the UFO phenomena (and by extension abductions) is a variation of the "age-old demonological phenomena."

UFOs and alien abductors are psychic projections. That means these are legitimate phenomena, and yet it isn't what we think. It isn't green men from mars. They aren't life-forms. They are thought-forms.

With my curiosity piqued by the article on the website Dean posted here, I picked up John Mack’s book Passport to the Cosmos. In the first chapter, Mack discusses how western society/culture, via its worldview (inherited from the European Ages of Reason and Industrialization), cut the physical realm off from the unseen spiritual realm, even to the point where the latter is no longer possible and non-existent (except in hallucinations or delusions) – materialism to a T. However, indigenous and other cultures elsewhere around the world have not held in the past, and often still do not hold this view today; rather, the spiritual and the physical are holistically entwined. The following paragraphs (pgs. 7, 10) illustrate this beautifully, in regard to the alien abduction phenomenon:

Among native peoples, at least those who have maintained a connection with the traditional ways, direct communication with the Creator may be part of everyday life, and UFOs, or something like them, seem to play a part in this contact. Wallace Black Elk, an esteemed Lakota elder and shaman, has said, “We don’t need a piece of paper” to contact the spirits. “…We send a voice to the Creator – ‘Yo-ho’- and somebody responds and comes in.” Someone might say, “’Yo-ho, I’m lost. I need help.’ Then a spirit comes and takes me some place. They’ll fly you there. They’ll take you any place. If you want to visit the moon, they’ll take you up there. They’ll put you in one of those little flying saucers, and they’ll zoom you up there in no time. Then, they’ll bring you back.

Wallace Black Elk, who, like many native American elders, has had experiences with “disks,” “these little people,” and telepathic communication with them, mocks the literalness and limited knowing power of scientific materialism. “The scientists call that a UFO, but that’s a joke, see? Because they are not trained; they lost contact with the wisdom, knowledge, power, and gift. So they have to see everything first with their naked eye. They have to catch one first. They have to shoot it down and see what all it is made of, how it was shaped and formed. But their intention is wrong, so somebody is misleading those scientists, because they lost contact with those star-nation people.”

Concerning this “somebody” – a sort of trickster entity – Mack explains: It is as if the agent or intelligence at work here were parodying, mocking, tricking, and deceiving the [materialist] investigators… In this apparently frustrating situation, there may lie a deeper truth and possibility. It is as if the phenomenon were inviting us to change our ways, to expand our consciousness and ways of learning, to use, in addition to our conventional ways of knowing and observing, methodologies more appropriate to its own complex, subtle, and perhaps ultimately unknowable nature.

It seems the ancients and mystics have known all along about the “star people” and their "UFO" crafts as part of the unseen “spiritual” realm. To them it’s nothing new – it only seems new to those of us in western society who, over the last 3 centuries, were weaned away from the spiritual realm and taught it was just one’s imagination or make-believe, it’s not “real.” But we are the ones who are now being forced via the trickster to reexamine our beliefs and re-learn how to open and expand our consciousness once again to include the unseen realms as part of our reality in this universe. Perhaps this expansion of consciousness is a necessary step toward our next big leap in human evolution.

What also struck me was the native Lakota name for the Creator - "Yo-ho." To me it sounds amazingly similar to Hebrew name for God - Yahweh or Jehova, or just Ya. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Maybe some of them are, but when you have multiple witnesses and/or radar confirmation, then it seems less likely. In the cases I mentioned in the previous post, it seems like the UFOs were real, solid objects. Check out the JAL UFO sighting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5IKmWDmHk

Here is John Callahan's (a division chief in the FAA at the time) take on the case:

Eric, I don't think that people who describe UFO's as possible psychic projections or crossover phenomena are in any way doubting that they are 'real. What they are doubting is the idea that these beings come from another star system, as is conventionally assumed.

That wasn't my point and I'm unwilling to speculate about what UFOs are or where they come from. My point is that some of the best sightings seem to involve a lot more than mere psychic projections; in these cases, the crafts seem to be real in the same sense as an airplane at any airport.

I've seen two UFOs myself last year on New Year's Day (the fact that it occured on that day tells me that God has a sense of humor). I don't know about abductions, but I certainly do believe that what I saw that day were certainly real, solid objects. In fact, my whole family saw the two UFOs as well.

So what do I think of them? They could be two things: extraterrestrial spacecraft, or top secret military vehicles. I'm open to either theory, and I wouldn't exclude the former since I cannot possibly believe we're the only living species in this infinite Universe.

"David is right, I am not doubting that they are real. I saw one about 20 years ago. I wasn't alone, a friend was with me.

They aren't biological aliens which evolved on another planet. They didn't travel through outer space to get here."

I think you guys are completely missing my point. All I'm saying is that the UFO issue is complicated and that any one idea doesn't do justice to all of the evidence. I'm skeptical of people who make declarative statements about an ambiguous issue. Where exactly did you get this information that refutes the ET hypothesis and supports your view that UFOs are psychic projections.

Eric: "Where exactly did you get this information that refutes the ET hypothesis and supports your view that UFOs are psychic projections."

Me: A variety of sources. As you say, this is a complicated issue. many fields of study shed light on the phenomena. My niche is comparative mysticism, and this under-developed field has a lot to say about the UFO phenomena. Comparative mythology as well.

Carl Jung and Jacques Vallée are my two favorite UFO researchers. There are many other researchers who do not support the ET hypothesis.

Ah. How can I know for "sure". Well I've had the UFO encounter I mentioned, I've had experience with poltergeists, and I've had shamanic dreams. I've had psychic experiences.

So between my personal experiences and my studies of comparative mysticism/mythology/religion, I have a high degree of confidence. Not 100%, I admit.

A psychic projection (thought-form) is sort of like a partition on a hard-drive. You partition it off from the whole (in this case, the collective unconscious) and install an operating system. Programming. Identity (is it an ET? An Angel? Or a God?). Characteristics (is it loving? Or wrathful?). Personality. A History (where did it come from?).

I have yet to see a persuasive argument showing that the best UFO cases can plausibly be explained as psychic projections. Yes, they can be so explained, but it becomes very strained. Look at the best cases and you have to suppose that "psychic projections" can present images of apparently physical "vehicles" that register on radar, image on photographic film and video cameras, generate magnetic fields and high intensities of light energy, creates air turbulence that rocks adjacent aircraft, and leaves ground traces. All of these features can be better explained as resulting from "somebody else's hardware" (to use Stanton Friedman's phrase). If this is the case, we still really don't know they are coming from some other planetary system in this galaxy, just that they are from somewhere else.

Yet many features of some cases seem to be better explained through such theories. Vallee's case of "Dr. X" comes to mind.

It boils down to there not being yet any satisfactory single explanation that deals with all aspects of the UFO phenomenon.

I just wanted to add Terence McKenna and Michio Kaku as two other people who say sensible things about the UFO phenomenon. Very interesting to check out. Shamanic Approaches to the UFO is an excellent lecture by McKenna.

I watched a John Mack lecture online thanks to Dean's blogpost and really enjoyed it, refreshing to see such skeptic objectivity, yet such openmindedness and humour on such a complex topic.

I try to avoid the word "conspiracy" since it tends to bring up information with the qualitative equivalance of chunks of crap as well as hard knock truth. Conspiracy is just another word for coalition, and to deny the existence of conspiracy for the sake of being conspiracy is pretty foolish.

That being said, I find myself light years away from the current community of conspiracy theorists since they tend to believe every half-assed infomercial documentary that comes there way.